Norfolk nChance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 How many of you guys play on EU(1) also? Is this your main alt base? They have a load more players and yet still suffer (comp[lain) the port timer situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norfolk nChance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 sorry should add I'm on all 3 servers but this is my main focus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ribault Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Have a character on pvp1 but only play on pvp2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norfolk nChance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 from what I gather, remember I'm new but all who play PvP US(2) have an alt on EU but this is there main play right? whether time zone or whatever. Just concerned me on Jeheil YouTube Parley how PvP1 just through around PvP2 comments adhoc. In all fairness Costs to EA is tiny server wise honestly it wouldn't be an issue, numbers obviously on it are... just trying to get facts straight that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Texas Sir Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 48 minutes ago, Norfolk nChance said: How many of you guys play on EU(1) also? Is this your main alt base? They have a load more players and yet still suffer (comp[lain) the port timer situation I started on PvP1, but when they mirrored it and it had a que to get in I went to PvP2 and have been here since. I have all ways keep an active char, but I can simply reroll it over there. This week I changed it from US to French and then to Spain cause some of us are thinking of going and playing during US prime time for there port battles when it's slow on PvP2. That and well hate to say it if we got rolled to one region most of us are so sick of the alliance we where just going to go play over there. Let them crush the other small nations and kill the server completely. 26 minutes ago, Jean Ribault said: Have a character on pvp1 but only play on pvp2. Yep got to get the free stuff when they come out so I keep one active char on each of the servers. Not that I ever do anying thing one PvE but I have chars there and redeemable I have never redeemed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Ribault Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 If you move to pvp1 and want my redeemables just ask, I'll never use them unless maybe they merge, and if that happens I'll have my stuff redeemed from pvp2. The only reason I have a character on pvp1 was to test the connection there to see how my ping, etc, changed on that server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverdead Ned Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Although the population of PvP1 is similar to PvP2 in the evening when I have been playing (NA timezones), I have found it less toxic than on PvP2. I'm sure this is not the case in the morning. I will continue to play on both until the big 3 kill all remaining pvp on PvP2. By pvp, I mean unscheduled, spontaneous fights and not the fake and really lame scheduled pvp the big 3 are trying to arrange between themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I love how ppl want to call it the big 3 or the carebear alliance, yet don't care to acknowledge the fact that our numbers for the Castries PB and the screening were even and was just as difficult to gather for both sides. rats have their alliance with danes, france, and sweden, and Dutch have an alliance with US and a friendship with Brit. What else some certain rats are refusing to acknowledge is that in the exact same 30 minutes of the PB, somehow the rats were also strong enough to raise hostility in Georgia 60%. Quite impressive. At least we know how to get more numbers on the server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirtuallyIdiotic Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, van der Decken said: and Dutch have an alliance with US and a friendship with Brit. Actually the triple alliance will be back in 5 days thanks to few clans. They believe that numbers will win a war even though we have continued to lose the last few port battles even when the port battle was full to our advantage. What I was hoping to do with the Dutch in their neutral state was to do wargames. Testing out tactics, developing leadership skills, working on battle coms, and building up younger members of the factions against a non-cpu opponent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 PBs against the quad-alliance will allow the same "practice" we in the triliance need Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirtuallyIdiotic Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, van der Decken said: PBs against the quad-alliance will allow the same "practice" we in the triliance need Not the younger lower rank players and unless its a 4am pb it is difficult to get into the port battle. Plus, it does not develop leadership. Edited February 2, 2017 by Marrius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverdead Ned Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, van der Decken said: I love how ppl want to call it the big 3 or the carebear alliance, yet don't care to acknowledge the fact that our numbers for the Castries PB and the screening were even and was just as difficult to gather for both sides. rats have their alliance with danes, france, and sweden, and Dutch have an alliance with US and a friendship with Brit. What else some certain rats are refusing to acknowledge is that in the exact same 30 minutes of the PB, somehow the rats were also strong enough to raise hostility in Georgia 60%. Quite impressive. At least we know how to get more numbers on the server. Once again you seem to struggle with reality. The Pirates need a full 25 from the Pirate faction alone to match it's opponents who can have anyone from any factions they are allied with join their port battles. Do the math(if you can). We saw well over 25 players from the carebears who were capable of coming into the PB while we had 23 or 24. It doesn't matter who shows up to screen if you have trouble getting the numbers into the PB. We struggled to get people online and most aren't interested in doing more than a couple Lineship battles and that's it. The great work done by the hostility gaining crew, came from a small group who couldn't get down to Castries because they had no outposts in the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, Neverdead Ned said: Once again you seem to struggle with reality. The Pirates need a full 25 from the Pirate faction alone to match it's opponents who can have anyone from any factions they are allied with join their port battles. Do the math(if you can). We saw well over 25 players from the carebears who were capable of coming into the PB while we had 23 or 24. It doesn't matter who shows up to screen if you have trouble getting the numbers into the PB. We struggled to get people online and most aren't interested in doing more than a couple Lineship battles and that's it. The great work done by the hostility gaining crew, came from a small group who couldn't get down to Castries because they had no outposts in the south. The single most important question is, "how many were in the PB and how many were screening?" It was 25 VP/US vs 24 rats in the PB and 10 Brits vs 10 danes outside. There were also French and swedes and 3 VG outside. I call that even. We had the exact same difficulty gathering the numbers, even with this "over populated" triliance. Not only that, all those rats who were not in the PB and were somehow gaining 60% of hostility in only 30 minutes had 46 hours to get OPs down south. 46 hours....actually even longer once they saw the forum post 2 days before that about Dutch declaring war on rats. The triliance has the same difficulty getting numbers as the quad-alliance. And for whatever it's worth, it tripled the server pop. It's just sad that it was so anticlimactic being over in only 30 minutes due to poor wind planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VirtuallyIdiotic Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, van der Decken said: The single most important question is, "how many were in the PB and how many were screening?" It was 25 VP/US vs 24 rats in the PB and 10 Brits vs 10 danes outside. There were also French and swedes and 3 VG outside. I call that even. We had the exact same difficulty gathering the numbers, even with this "over populated" triliance. Thats down in the Castries. Far from most of GB and US player base. Numbers are significantly different when you get a port battle closer to home for GB and US. Edited February 2, 2017 by Marrius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Just now, Marrius said: Thats down in the Castries. Far from most of GB and US player base. Numbers are different when you get a port battle closer to home for GB and US. Indeed...as it is hard for the Dutch to show up north as well. So we can call it basically a US/GB alliance up north and a very thin triliance down south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, van der Decken said: The single most important question is, "how many were in the PB and how many were screening?" It was 25 VP/US vs 24 rats in the PB and 10 Brits vs 10 danes outside. There were also French and swedes and 3 VG outside. I call that even. We had the exact same difficulty gathering the numbers, even with this "over populated" triliance. Not only that, all those rats who were not in the PB and were somehow gaining 60% of hostility in only 30 minutes had 46 hours to get OPs down south. 46 hours....actually even longer once they saw the forum post 2 days before that about Dutch declaring war on rats. The triliance has the same difficulty getting numbers as the quad-alliance. And for whatever it's worth, it tripled the server pop. It's just sad that it was so anticlimactic being over in only 30 minutes due to poor wind planning. Also there is the point that when we are allied with GB shortly that will be 35 who could have come into our port battle which was very far away from both the US and GB player base. That leaves the pirates still with only 24 members in the port battle not all of who are in 1st rates against our 25 who can get in who are probably going to be in at smallest a 2nd rate. Its a different story against the Danes, French and Swedes they can help each other INSIDE the battles. And as we have seen the Danes can bring usually around 23 themselves so their alliance is fine when they want to be. The Pirates in the game are a nation who cannot ally with anyone and therefore are weaker when server population is as low as it is currently. Until something changes with that their "nation" is at a huge disadvantage against everyone else especially the US GB Dutch fleets. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Texas Sir Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 San Juan Line ship port battle - 11 Pirates vs 25 US/Brits/Dutch As stated before we can't support 25 every night and had to call in folks just to get that last night. So well when your 2 vs 1 odds you get rolled. Even if you just count the US that is 14 in the port battle. I have no clue what was out side. Even though some folks said they where late cause they got tagged by a few Danes/French out side. The point brought up above is it doesn't matter if any one gets tagged or not by screeners when we don't have other nations to fill our slots to keep it 25 no matter what. US/Brit/Dutch do. The sad thing is ya'll lost 6 ships vs our 7 with you having us out number that much. Well have fun with your your alliance. I'll prob be seeing ya'll at Kidd's soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Texas Sir Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Axel said: Also there is the point that when we are allied with GB shortly that will be 35 who could have come into our port battle which was very far away from both the US and GB player base. That leaves the pirates still with only 24 members in the port battle not all of who are in 1st rates against our 25 who can get in who are probably going to be in at smallest a 2nd rate. Its a different story against the Danes, French and Swedes they can help each other INSIDE the battles. And as we have seen the Danes can bring usually around 23 themselves so their alliance is fine when they want to be. The Pirates in the game are a nation who cannot ally with anyone and therefore are weaker when server population is as low as it is currently. Until something changes with that their "nation" is at a huge disadvantage against everyone else especially the US GB Dutch fleets. Specially when your not even trying to be the aggressors and the big three do nothing but fight small nations trying to just hold on to one or two regions. I been posting these Port Battles for a reason to let folks know how they went and to document exactly how many shows up on each side. There for a while folks keep saying we all ways had more ships. This was said over and over when we had numbers and if you saw every PB screen shot most the time we where out number but it was more like 20-25 vs 20-25 on each side. Not so lop sided it is now. And both nations we where fighting (US and Brits) had the player base larger than ours. It was not our fualt folks just didn't want to show to support there own ports and it wasn't the new players not showing it was the older players cause they had the mentality we can loose one port, but we can take 3 more back every night. As US took ports while Brits loosed them and they could just share ports. So truly when Brits was down to one port they really never was cause they could use all US ports. Well Pirates can't use any one regions and can't have allies join in there port battles. We been very clear about our intentions to keep just a few regions as buffers around Mort and that was it. Really if ya'll are so proud of your fighting and want to get better FIGHT EACH OTHER. Edited February 3, 2017 by Sir Texas Sir 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said: Specially when your not even trying to be the aggressors and the big three do nothing but fight small nations trying to just hold on to one or two regions. I been posting these Port Battles for a reason to let folks know how they went and to document exactly how many shows up on each side. There for a while folks keep saying we all ways had more ships. This was said over and over when we had numbers and if you saw every PB screen shot most the time we where out number but it was more like 20-25 vs 20-25 on each side. Not so lop sided it is now. And both nations we where fighting (US and Brits) had the player base larger than ours. It was not our fualt folks just didn't want to show to support there own ports and it wasn't the new players not showing it was the older players cause they had the mentality we can loose one port, but we can take 3 more back every night. As use took ports while Brits loosed them and they could just share ports. So truly when Brits was down to one port they really never was cause they could use all US ports. Well Pirates can't use any one regions and can't have allies join in there port battles. We been very clear about our intentions to keep just a few regions as buffers around Mort and that was it. Really if ya'll are so proud of your fighting and want to get better FIGHT EACH OTHER. Not sure if you quoted me to add on or were trying to convince me but you dont need to convince me that the threesome isnt needed. The problem is that there are more people that think it is the only way to survive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Texas Sir Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Axel said: Not sure if you quoted me to add on or were trying to convince me but you dont need to convince me that the threesome isnt needed. The problem is that there are more people that think it is the only way to survive. I was agreeing with you by adding my own view. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) I'll leave Pirates out of it at the moment but as for the Nations, if you discounted the Brits, I'd say the 2 sides are fairly even. if the Brits and US fought each other, I think they would enjoy the fights, I just think no one else would honor that fight and instead try to take advantage of them fighting by taking land. The real crux is all you folks are way to bitter about each other to do anything. a player may take an action like capturing an enemy player from a different nation. Suddenly that player is hated by a whole faction for doing something ENTIRELY allowed in the game. Too many people are just too salty about everything on PvP2, and from my standpoint, that is why nothing is going to change until both sides cut the bullcrap out. the Port Battle was fun, even though no one sank and only really some damage on a few ships, people logged in to have a good time. Why can't we just...idk... encourage that side of the Naval Action we want instead of being complete and utter pussies about everything. Edited February 3, 2017 by Teutonic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van der Clam Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 52 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said: It was not our fualt folks just didn't want to show to support there own ports It is not our fault rats just don't want to show to support their own ports.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Sir Texas Sir said: I was agreeing with you by adding my own view. what's funny is that part of the players in the Dutch nation hate Axel for no reason *shrugs*. should've heard it on teamspeak, they wanted him kicked from channel lol. Edited February 3, 2017 by Teutonic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneEyedSnake Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, Teutonic said: what's funny is that half of the Dutch nation hates Axel for no reason *shrugs*. ill let you know why some people are being very disagreeable. Its a paranoia when you guys just sit in our afk channel for hours, and constantly Axel is seen throwing down the dutch on global. People just arent comfortable with it, no one hates him, just dont trust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, OneEyedSnake said: ill let you know why some people are being very disagreeable. Its a paranoia when you guys just sit in our afk channel for hours, and constantly Axel is seen throwing down the dutch on global. People just arent comfortable with it, no one hates him, just dont trust him. Both Axel and I play multiple different games and are on multiple different teamspeaks at the same time, we both sit in the afk channels waiting for pokes or pings for action or a port battle or whatever is going down. because otherwise there really isn't anything to do. so far how its worked was when I wasn't on TS, i didn't hear about anything happening. as I said before, the Paranoia is just outrageous for a game like this. I won't defend axel on his anti nation chatter as he just does that all the time and it is silly. EDIT: I'll clarify that in the end it's just two bitter vetted fools who have played this game since it's beginning, or nearly it's beginning and are tired or all the hilarity that goes on. Edited February 3, 2017 by Teutonic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts